TYT: Have Republicans stopped pretending they're not racist?

From HuffPo: Rick Santorum gripes about "blacks" getting welfare, Newt Gingrich calls Obama a "food stamp president," Mitt Romney parrots the KKK line, "America for Americans" and the list goes on. Republicans haven't evolved since Ronald Reagan talked about "welfare queens," quoted Jefferson Davis in Macon, GA, and pointedly visited Philadelphia, Mississippi without mentioning the civil rights massacre there. The GOP thinks it has mastered the passive aggressive art of luring racists without fingerprints, but sorry guys your gig is up.

1/5/2012
vaire2ubesays...

Ok... way to ask the obvious. They're not racists so much as bigoted and ignorant.


and now no mention of the biggest, most obvious racist and bigot Ron Paul? Why is that... perhaps they've had some time to actually listen to the man? interesting.

bobknight33says...

Do you want a paycheck or an warfare? I'd rather vote for the one who creates an environment for job growth rather than enslavement to a government.

Republicans don't care if you are black. We only care if you desire to succeed.

dystopianfuturetodaysays...

They did briefly mention Ron Paul. FYI: Ron Paul is a big 'States Rights' guy, which is code for the freedom to discriminate among many bigots. Also, Ron Paul's go-to economics organization, 'The Mises Institute' is listed with the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Neo-Confederate organization. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time believing an eldery, white, millionare, career politician from Texas could be a bigot, especially considering his poor voting record on civil rights and his questionable ties to white supremacists. I think the little elf has cast a charm spell on you. >> ^vaire2ube:

Ok... way to ask the obvious. They're not racists so much as bigoted and ignorant.

and now no mention of the biggest, most obvious racist and bigot Ron Paul? Why is that... perhaps they've had some time to actually listen to the man? interesting.

dystopianfuturetodaysays...

Also this, from here (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/)

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

shuacsays...

Small tangent...

As far as terminology goes, I never got on board the "African-American" train because it was silly and it stank of white guilt. I don't feel guilty in the slightest so, yes, black people are still called black people around my place.

I'm not sure about pluralizing it with "the blacks," however. That might be going a bit too far. That's like say "the jews."

White people. Jewish people. Black people. That's how I roll.

vaire2ubesays...

He is certainly NOT unequivocally opposed. Far from it, completely. Please.


So he doesnt believe in affirmative action? Great, maybe he realizes that the term minority and majority are just that.. terms... and the group they are applied to can change.


This is why he wants out of the UN. Its all well and good now, that WE are in charge. It's better to start setting up a system that benefits everyone, even those NOT in charge at the current moment.

I'm not buying into him being against other lifestyles to the point of not being reasonable or allowing states to decide... its not a slippery slope to me that he wants people to decide for themselves, so that things can start to really sort out. The Defense of Marriage act? Ok, well In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”

Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

If Ron Paul is personally uncomfortable with gays but puts forth a political ideology that doesn't discriminate & strives to protect the personal liberties of ALL Americans, he's as good as Obama to me. I don't see Obama going out of his way to force the issue either...

Here is why "They" don't want him: his libertarian views trump his moral compass. simple as that. he can be fair and rational.

Trancecoachsays...

Um. Ron Paul was mentioned in reference to his racist newsletters.>> ^vaire2ube:

Ok... way to ask the obvious. They're not racists so much as bigoted and ignorant.

and now no mention of the biggest, most obvious racist and bigot Ron Paul? Why is that... perhaps they've had some time to actually listen to the man? interesting.

vaire2ubesays...

Defense of Marriage Act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government


"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"


I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.

This isn't the 60's anymore ... we have a lot more information and with that information, people will sort out the MOST FAIR system... but only if they are allowed to, from the local govt and up. It has to sort itself out. Things evolve, slowly.

vaire2ubesays...

they way people are talking about Ron Paul, why only briefly mention his newsletters.. the whole segment should be about how he is worse than hitler.



maybe because that comparisons fades away after listening to the official party tools, and their insane bigotry... suddenly Ron Paul is just honest and honest about his own shortcomings and his faith in other people to decide for themselves

vaire2ubesays...

I like the new tangent... so, if Ron Paul isn't a Racist.... well by golly he's at least a Homophobe!


and if he's not a Homophobe, then he should be better able to convince everyone... just like Obama has worked tirelessly for Gay Rights every day... oh wait.

I've had sex with men and I'm going to write Ron Paul in the ballot if he's not on it. End of story. I'm not going to cry about the fact that he is basically not gay. He is not a homosexual... so why would anyone expect him to be tolerant AND understanding? I'll settle for the first one. He doesn't have to like it, and I believe eventually the legislation will reflect this to be a non-issue. It will take more time.

vaire2ubesays...

..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul

dystopianfuturetodaysays...

Ron Paul doesn’t just oppose affirmative action, he opposes all civil rights measures, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - you know, the one that allows black people the LIBERTY to drink out of drinking fountains not marked colored? He voted against MLK day. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289). He even voted against recognizing the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling on its 50th anniversary, which is beyond petty. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml He wants to dissolve all civil rights protections and allow government sanctioned discrimination at the state level, giving a new meaning to the term "state"-ism.

Why do you think he flip flopped on Gay rights in 2010? If this guy has been so ‘consistent’, fair and unprejudiced, why did it take him until 2010 to get on board with tolerance towards gay people? Is it possible that this deity among men could just be doing some old fashioned political pandering? Of course not! We must not challenge the Ron Paul hive mind!

Let’s take down your last two points (Ron Paul on the UN, Ron Paul is rational) with one stroke.

Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

Let me say that again. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

One more time. Let the inanity of this sentence wash over you like a tropical shower. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Does any of this seem rational to you?

vaire2ubesays...

Yea actually, if we were not in charge of the UN or could dismiss it at will, then one might argue that the UN troops could do what they do, in other countries, currently, which is to be there at all.

It's fun to run things when you're in charge.

Also, letting people decide for themselves means you have a process and a chain of trust at the conclusion.

I put forth, per Dr. King, that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice" ... and to that end, we can let people be bigots and racist if they want... eventually, people will see that all humans are more similar than different and small-minded views will be condemned with the force of all history. I certainly don't mean to imply that if Ron Paul is ignorant then that is acceptable -- i'm saying, letting people come out against things means eventually they have to defend their reasoning, and that is where progress can be made.. IF enough people have access to information.

Or something. Maybe we'll all just forget. Whatever it takes, it will take Time not a new president.

I was going to vote for Obama before I forced myself to look more at Ron Paul, and now I'll write in Ron Paul. Obama will still win per recent election history and his victory margins last time. QFT.

dystopianfuturetodaysays...

It seems to me that the people have already made up their mind on equal rights for black people, way back in 1964, when they demanded our government give black people equal rights. Why on earth would we want to go backwards? Your reasoning makes no sense. Time for a Flavor Aide detox.

The more I look at Ron Paul, the more obvious it becomes to me that he is a terrible candidate. He has so many indefensible positions on civil rights and economics. He's just another states rights neo confederate who has captured the hearts and minds with some effective hype. Look closer. >> ^vaire2ube:

Yea actually, if we were not in charge of the UN or could dismiss it at will, then one might argue that the UN troops could do what they do, in other countries, currently, which is to be there at all.
It's fun to run things when you're in charge.
Also, letting people decide for themselves means you have a process and a chain of trust at the conclusion.
I put forth, per Dr. King, that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice" ... and to that end, we can let people be bigots and racist if they want... eventually, people will see that all humans are more similar than different and small-minded views will be condemned with the force of all history. I certainly don't mean to imply that if Ron Paul is ignorant then that is acceptable -- i'm saying, letting people come out against things means eventually they have to defend their reasoning, and that is where progress can be made.. IF enough people have access to information.
Or something. Maybe we'll all just forget. Whatever it takes, it will take Time not a new president.
I was going to vote for Obama before I forced myself to look more at Ron Paul, and now I'll write in Ron Paul. Obama will still win per recent election history and his victory margins last time. QFT.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More